All Discussions Tagged 'will' - Think Atheist2015-08-03T00:56:39Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topic/listForTag?tag=will&feed=yes&xn_auth=noThe Problem of Omnisciencetag:www.thinkatheist.com,2015-06-27:1982180:Topic:15386562015-06-27T17:50:11.814ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>I I were God, I'd know the entire history of the universe forever, future as well as past, I'd also know in advance every one of my own acts.</p>
<p>Oh, but wait, there's a dilemma there, isn't there?</p>
<p>Either God is bound by his future acts and has no free will, or he isn't omniscient at all because he doesn't know the future.</p>
<p>I call this The Problem of Omniscience.</p>
<p>I I were God, I'd know the entire history of the universe forever, future as well as past, I'd also know in advance every one of my own acts.</p>
<p>Oh, but wait, there's a dilemma there, isn't there?</p>
<p>Either God is bound by his future acts and has no free will, or he isn't omniscient at all because he doesn't know the future.</p>
<p>I call this The Problem of Omniscience.</p> Apple is "Watch"ing Us?tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2015-03-10:1982180:Topic:15199832015-03-10T17:58:43.539ZNerdy Keithhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/keith
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://api.ning.com:80/files/640cdJ4qjLT0BzJ4xgK1ZvOShiDnrkILuBnIcqVPGhw*Wz4aIQEh0Y*hLWoV3EyDf-27YmkVyv0P0DtT7pCy3ISe6Rd-CLLC/ScreenShot20150310at18.07.13.png" target="_self"><img class="align-center" src="http://api.ning.com:80/files/640cdJ4qjLT0BzJ4xgK1ZvOShiDnrkILuBnIcqVPGhw*Wz4aIQEh0Y*hLWoV3EyDf-27YmkVyv0P0DtT7pCy3ISe6Rd-CLLC/ScreenShot20150310at18.07.13.png" width="556"></img></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfvBIRWRaxM" target="_blank">Click here to watch the video</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>This may be a little off topic for Think Atheist, but I wanted to share this with the Think Atheist community. In saying its "off…</p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://api.ning.com:80/files/640cdJ4qjLT0BzJ4xgK1ZvOShiDnrkILuBnIcqVPGhw*Wz4aIQEh0Y*hLWoV3EyDf-27YmkVyv0P0DtT7pCy3ISe6Rd-CLLC/ScreenShot20150310at18.07.13.png" target="_self"><img src="http://api.ning.com:80/files/640cdJ4qjLT0BzJ4xgK1ZvOShiDnrkILuBnIcqVPGhw*Wz4aIQEh0Y*hLWoV3EyDf-27YmkVyv0P0DtT7pCy3ISe6Rd-CLLC/ScreenShot20150310at18.07.13.png" width="556" class="align-center"/></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfvBIRWRaxM" target="_blank">Click here to watch the video</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>This may be a little off topic for Think Atheist, but I wanted to share this with the Think Atheist community. In saying its "off topic" it does deal with the subject of belief; in particular a belief in a conspiracy theory. <br/> <br/> <span>I usually get all my news through an RSS application called Feedly; and for some reason I was shared this video from this insane person who is basically claiming that Apple want to turn us into cyborgs. Off all the conspiracy theories I've heard this one is off the charts haha. </span><br/> <br/> <span>He really is literally insane lol. Merge man with machine? This guy needs to take off the tinfoil hat; apple do not find his life that interesting. As difficult as that must be difficult for him to comprehend. But really Apple is a company that just wants to make a lot of money. They brought this new product out, because they want to compete with their competitors; who they themselves have already released smart watches. Yes the prices are insane; and I don't intend to spend 5,000 on a watch. I possibly might consider the less expensive sports version sometime in the not so near future. </span><br/> <br/> <span>In any case; he needs to stop reading into something that isn't there. He is insane and needs professional help. What are your views on this? Do you agree with me? Is he insane? I'm just amazed how these conspiracy </span>theorists read into the most basic everyday thing. What happened to the days when a new tech product got realised; the only worry was the Apple and Android fan boys going to cyberwar with each other? Now we have to deal with conspiracy theorists too? </p> Why do living things strive to continue?tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-12-27:1982180:Topic:15073142014-12-27T14:21:34.508Z_Robert_http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/RobertCampbell
<p>We look around and everywhere, plants, animals...even microbial organisms struggle to live and reproduce. What is the motivation? Why does an ant work so hard?</p>
<p>The bible says "go forth and multiply" and our goal is to get into heaven (and again, to live forever.) All the other life is here for us to use as we desire. It's a nice package that answers all of these question. I suspect that all religions and gods are really an attempt to answer this question.</p>
<p>Perhaps there is no…</p>
<p>We look around and everywhere, plants, animals...even microbial organisms struggle to live and reproduce. What is the motivation? Why does an ant work so hard?</p>
<p>The bible says "go forth and multiply" and our goal is to get into heaven (and again, to live forever.) All the other life is here for us to use as we desire. It's a nice package that answers all of these question. I suspect that all religions and gods are really an attempt to answer this question.</p>
<p>Perhaps there is no motivation, except it is the nature of life to strive to continue. It is what we are, What all biologics simply ARE. We, who are "self aware" end up inventing fantastical purposes to simply be what we just are. Death is us failing to be what we are, especially death without reproduction. I am childless and sometimes people actually get very mad at me for that. To survive with limited resources, we do need to be more clever than to simply overpopulate the planet, because that would result in a collective failure. Perhaps human diseases and aging and maybe even wars are a built-In part of us that help temper the population explosion so that we may keep on "keepin' on".</p> Is free will compatible with determinism?tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-09-30:1982180:Topic:14931772014-09-30T10:45:46.356ZSimon Mathewshttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/SimonMathews
<p>I recently read a book called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Evolves-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0142003840" target="_blank">Freedom Evolves</a> by the philosopher Daniel Dennett. In it, he puts forward the idea that free will is compatible with a deterministic view of the universe.</p>
<p>Determinism is the idea that everything that happens has been determined by a previous state of affairs. Imagine a beaker of liquid. If we know all the positions of the molecules in the liquid at time T we…</p>
<p>I recently read a book called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Evolves-Daniel-C-Dennett/dp/0142003840" target="_blank">Freedom Evolves</a> by the philosopher Daniel Dennett. In it, he puts forward the idea that free will is compatible with a deterministic view of the universe.</p>
<p>Determinism is the idea that everything that happens has been determined by a previous state of affairs. Imagine a beaker of liquid. If we know all the positions of the molecules in the liquid at time T we also know their positions at time T + 1 because they will all move in accordance with the laws of physics and we can calculate what their new positions will be. This idea can be applied to the universe as a whole. Theoretically, by knowing the position of every particle at the beginning of the universe and knowing the laws of physics governing those particles you can extrapolate everything that will ever happen.</p>
<p>At face value the idea of determinism seems to contradict the idea of free will. If everything is determined by what has gone before then how can any individual make a free choice? This has caused many thinkers to imagine there is some kind of non-material substance (e.g. mind, soul, spirit) that is not subject to the laws of physics. This supernatural substance is supposedly the seat of our free will and interacts with our brain to freely cause our actions. The philosopher Rene Descartes believed this interaction occurred at the pineal gland (<a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-gland/" target="_blank">source</a>). I am not comfortable with supernatural entities at the best of times but even less so when they can interact with the natural world (i.e. our brain). Therefore I do not subscribe to dualism and have to account for all our actions from our material brain.</p>
<p>Dennett explains that some people have tried to use quantum indeterminancy to resolve the issue. The trick is to have some form of genuine randomness (through quantum particles) involved in our decision making process such that strict determinism is avoided. I do not know enough about quantum theory to confidently speak about it but I understand that in some way quantum-level randomness is different from the sort of pseudo-randomness you get from a computer algorithm. A computer algorithm will give you a bunch of numbers that seem random to us but they are actually predictable (since a set of deterministic computer instructions creates them). Quantum randomness is supposed to be genuinely random (completely unpredictable).</p>
<p>Dennett does not hold with the quantum explanation though. He states that, even if it were true that quantum level events occur as part of our thought processes, this does not provide us with the free will we seek because by definition we do not control this randomness. Therefore we are just slave to a different kind of process that happens to be random rather than determined. This does not make you any more free in his opinion, and I agree with him.</p>
<p>So what is Dennett's approach? Obviously condensing a large and complex book down to a few paragraphs does not do it justice but there was a particular example he used which I think illustrates his point. Imagine two computers that are designed to play chess. The first is a rather crudely written program which uses a sort of trial and error approach. It will analyse the result of a potential move and according to some basic rules work out whether this move puts it in a better position or not. It may even consider two, or three moves ahead depending on the computing power available. The number of possible moves in chess is so vast that the computer must be constrained in some way to keep it practical. A computer designed in this way will play a serviceable game of chess.</p>
<p>Now consider the second computer. Instead of trial and error it has been equipped with a database of previous chess games by grand-masters, along with a framework for understanding more complex strategies such as protecting the queen, or sacrificing pawns. Due to the superior design this computer plays chess at a much higher level than the first computer.</p>
<p>If you present these two computers with the same chessboard configuration the second computer, due to its design, has more useful options available to it than the first computer. A useful option is defined as one that increases the chances of the computer winning. This gives the second computer more freedom, according to Dennett. The level of freedom is defined by the amount of benefit-enhancing potential moves available. This is despite the fact that both computers are entirely deterministic (because they are running a predictable set of algorithms). Dennett claims that it is the same with humans. Our cognitive equipment presents us with a myriad of potential moves at any point in time and this gives us our freedom even though all the atoms composing our brains follow a deterministic course.</p>
<p>It's an interesting idea and I am drawn to it. It does imply that humans have more free will than, say, a fly because humans are more cognitively equipped. I am comfortable with this notion. However, an extension of this argument is that adult humans have more free will than baby humans. It also implies that the more knowledgeable one gets, the more free will one has. This is because the knowledge one gains presents more options for actions than were previously available. I'm not sure I can get on board with this idea.</p>
<p>What do others think? Can we be free in a deterministic universe?</p> Adopted "-isms"tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-01-22:1982180:Topic:14277642014-01-22T00:06:38.234ZReneehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ReneeMcGee
<p>What school of thought do you identify most with, and why?<br></br> I'm just beginning to look at philosophy, and find humanism attractive (AC Grayling' s work especially). Please post your favorite/most convincing "ism" (for example, but not limited to, determinism, humanism, nihilism, objectivism) and a bit on what led you there. I'm focusing primarily on systems of ethics, sources of meaning and free will. Feel free to post about how these systems impact your political views as well.…<br></br></p>
<p>What school of thought do you identify most with, and why?<br/> I'm just beginning to look at philosophy, and find humanism attractive (AC Grayling' s work especially). Please post your favorite/most convincing "ism" (for example, but not limited to, determinism, humanism, nihilism, objectivism) and a bit on what led you there. I'm focusing primarily on systems of ethics, sources of meaning and free will. Feel free to post about how these systems impact your political views as well.<br/> Thanks in advance :)</p> Comments on the famous John Dillon Haynes experiment?tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-07-27:1982180:Topic:13574152013-07-27T16:39:50.796ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>First of all, watch <a href="http://mythoffreewill.blogspot.com/2010/10/neuroscience-and-free-will.html" target="_blank">this BBC video</a> about the experiment which seems to pretty conclusively show that real decisions are not done in the conscious mind. It's not even 6 minutes long, so no great commitment After watching, what is your reaction?</p>
<p>The experiment shows that decision-making is done in the unconscious mind up to six seconds before we are aware of it, and not as the result…</p>
<p>First of all, watch <a href="http://mythoffreewill.blogspot.com/2010/10/neuroscience-and-free-will.html" target="_blank">this BBC video</a> about the experiment which seems to pretty conclusively show that real decisions are not done in the conscious mind. It's not even 6 minutes long, so no great commitment After watching, what is your reaction?</p>
<p>The experiment shows that decision-making is done in the unconscious mind up to six seconds before we are aware of it, and not as the result of conscious deliberation.</p>
<p>Bear in mind that decision-making as studied in this experiment differs from other behaviors such as reactions and reflexes, though they also are not really done through a conscious deliberative process. They are situations where time doesn't allow deliberation and your body and nervous system "just do it." Avoiding a child running into the street, for example, doesn't result from a decision-making process but is done as a simple reaction that is not handled in the brain proper but is handled by the nervous system, much the way you don't decide to blink when someone flicks a finger at your eyes.</p> A Question for the Religious Folks Heretag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-03-04:1982180:Topic:12684992013-03-04T22:11:14.378ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p><em>A close-knit ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn was plunged into a new round of mourning Monday by the death of a baby who was delivered by cesarean section after his parents were killed in a grisly hit-and-run crash a day earlier.</em></p>
<p><em>Police hunted for the suspected driver, identified as Julio Acevedo, saying he was barreling down a residential street in a BMW at 60 mph, or twice the speed limit, on Sunday morning when he collided with a car hired to take the couple…</em></p>
<p><em>A close-knit ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn was plunged into a new round of mourning Monday by the death of a baby who was delivered by cesarean section after his parents were killed in a grisly hit-and-run crash a day earlier.</em></p>
<p><em>Police hunted for the suspected driver, identified as Julio Acevedo, saying he was barreling down a residential street in a BMW at 60 mph, or twice the speed limit, on Sunday morning when he collided with a car hired to take the couple to the hospital.</em></p>
<p><em>The death of the newborn on Monday piled tragedy upon tragedy and compounded the community's grief. The infant was expected to be buried near the fresh graves of his parents, Nachman and Raizy Glauber, both 21. About a thousand community members turned out for the young couple's funeral a day earlier.</em></p>
<p><em>"The mood in the neighborhood is very heavy," said Oscar Sabel, a retired printer who lives near the scene of the accident. "We all hoped the baby would survive."</em></p>
<p><em>Brooklyn is home to the largest community of ultra-Orthodox Jews outside Israel, more than 250,000. The couple married last year and were living in the Williamsburg neighborhood.</em></p>
<p><em>They were members of the Satmar Hasidic sect, whose men dress in dark coats and hats, wear long beards like their Eastern European ancestors and have limited dealings with the outside world. Raizy Glauber grew up in a prominent rabbinical family. Her husband was studying at a rabbinical college; his family founded a line of clothing for Orthodox Jews.</em> (<a href="http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/crime/article/Mourning-in-NY-as-baby-dies-after-hit-and-run-4324177.php" target="_blank">source</a>)</p>
<p>Question for the religious people here: If it was God's will that these parents and their unborn baby die in a hit and run, how can we hold the driver responsible based on his free will?</p> Dualism and Monism from an Atheistic viewpointtag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-01-31:1982180:Topic:12542412013-01-31T04:07:01.030ZAnonhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/BenHough
<p>Preface – this discussion originated in another thread which can be viewed here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/fellow-atheists-what-is-your-take-on-dualism?xg_source=msg_com_forum&amp;id=1982180%3ATopic%3A1083222&amp;page=1#comments">http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/fellow-atheists-what-is-your-take-on-dualism?xg_source=msg_com_forum&amp;id=1982180%3ATopic%3A1083222&amp;page=1#comments</a></p>
<p>I should point out, that I have not deeply studied any…</p>
<p>Preface – this discussion originated in another thread which can be viewed here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/fellow-atheists-what-is-your-take-on-dualism?xg_source=msg_com_forum&amp;id=1982180%3ATopic%3A1083222&amp;page=1#comments">http://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/fellow-atheists-what-is-your-take-on-dualism?xg_source=msg_com_forum&amp;id=1982180%3ATopic%3A1083222&amp;page=1#comments</a></p>
<p>I should point out, that I have not deeply studied any religious texts, or for that matter, any philosophical ones, and I have no specific position whatsoever. This has no bearing on anything, but some of the arguments for and against seem to be <i>ad hominem</i>, so I say that just to avoid those from the beginning. If you have no interest in this subject, don’t bother posting at all.</p>
<p>There are several questions it seems to me, left unanswered by monism and dualism. To say dualism is dead <em>seems</em> to be a bit premature.</p>
<p>Questions:</p>
<p>Where do abstract ideas exist?</p>
<p>What is our brain doing when we think abstractedly, and where in the brain does it do this?</p>
<p>How does monism resolve the “illusions” of free will and self?</p>
<p>If monism is correct, abstract ideas must exist in the physical world. Where do they exist? Some say that abstract ideas only exist when we think of them, but this poses more problems than it solves. If we take the idea that abstract thoughts only exist in conscious minds, if there are no conscious minds, or, if no conscious mind is thinking of an abstract idea at that moment in time, does the idea no longer exist? If none of us think about the number 1 or 2, and abstract ideas only exist in conscious minds, that would mean that 1 or 2, at that point, do not exist at all. Intuitively, this seems incorrect, and dare I say, a “conscious-centric” worldview, which seems to arrogantly suggest that the humble numbers 1 and 2 do not exist without us.</p>
<p>To look at it from another perspective, let us consider an abstract law which exists in the universe. For example, gravity. If none of us think about gravity, we must still accept gravity still exists and acts in the universe. That must mean that gravity has a place in the world without conscious minds. What about numbers?</p>
<p>To continue the monist problem, where does gravity exist in the physical world? Or E=mc2? If monism is correct, we ought to be able to look closer and closer and perceive gravity, or another law. We ought to be able to look close enough and say, “This is a gravity. This is an E=mc2.” This does not seem likely, even if we had the most powerful perceptive faculties imaginable. However, everything else in the material world operates in a space. Two balls, one red and one blue exist in space. We can say, “This ball is red, that one is blue. They are not the same.” The balls exist, they operate in the physical world, the same as gravity, and E=mc2, but the balls are divisible. We can break them down and find that fundamentally they are the same particle. But these particles exist in space, separate from each other. How would we break down a gravity? What would it’s constituent parts be? Everything we say materially exists operates in space and is divisible down to fundamental building blocks. Gravity exists in space but where, and what can it be broken down to? We cannot avoid the issue by saying gravity exists everywhere because that would mean we are made up of fundamental particles of gravity, yet so far we consider ourselves to be built up of minute particles. If we are just fundamental blocks of gravity, what about other physical laws?</p>
<p>The Ancient Greek and Indian philosophers were able to intuitively suggest that solid objects are actually made up mostly of space. This is completely counter-intuitive and if I were alive at that time and they told me I would have thought them mad. To say a solid table is mostly space seems wrong, yet they were found to be correct.</p>
<p>If our brains are simply sense perceiving and translation devices, how did they arrive at this conclusion? Where did this idea come from, where in the brain was this done and how? If our brains are simply sense perceiving organs that must mean there is a site in the brain which has something akin to an electron-microscope (when thinking ‘micro’ abstractedly) or a high powered telescope (when thinking ‘macro’ abstractedly, for example in pre-scientific theories about the Big Bang/creation of the universe). Where is this site in the brain, and how does it see that far? Monism MUST say that there is a device like this in the brain, if so, where is it, and how does it do this? Furthermore, if this was simply a perceiving organ, why do we have the ability to create abstract ideas as well as perceive them?</p>
<p>From a monist’s perspective, “free will” and “self” are illusory, because everything is determinable by the fundamental laws of the universe. A monist must therefore consider both an illusion, which would suggest all conscious minds are suffered from some kind of dementia. If our senses of selves and will are delusional, how can we trust our other senses? This seems dangerously close to slipping into solipsism, and if we can prove nothing else, as Descartes said, the one thing we do know is that we exist. If the only thing I can prove to exist is myself, yet this is an illusion, does not monism slip gently into solipsism at its most fundamental state?</p>
<p>The dualist stance would solve a lot of these questions, but pose more of its own.</p>
<p>A dualist world which consisted of thought/matter, and our consciousness as some sort of window between the two solves the problems of where these abstract thoughts exist which seem problematic from a monist standpoint, as they would exist in some sort of universal other place where the abstract ideas which shape our world formally exist in their entirety and can be seen in their pure forms. The problem for dualists to solve is how we are able to see this other world, where in our material brains does this window exist? As a kind of point of singularity? Where precisely could a dualist point to and say, “This is the material site of our window?” A dualist must resolve this point if they are able to say where the point of interaction between the two worlds exists.</p>
<p>A dualist can also site a “will” or “self” at this point of consciousness, and resolve the monist problems with free will and self, but dualism still has to resolve the problem of where this point exists materially, as everything else we can prove to exist has a “place” in the material world.</p> Would you lie to ensure a financial inheritance comes your way?tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-10-12:1982180:Topic:11926672012-10-12T17:17:22.556ZEdhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/EdwardDelauter
<p>Hypothetically speaking, if you were given a choice to make what would ensure your financial independence but went against your personal convictions would you still do it? If your mother/father told you that they could not grant an inheritance to anyone who didn't believe in god and jebus, and that <em>conversion </em>would be necessary to ensure your eligibility, what would be your response? Let's say half a million dollars is at stake in this decision. Would you stand your ground and…</p>
<p>Hypothetically speaking, if you were given a choice to make what would ensure your financial independence but went against your personal convictions would you still do it? If your mother/father told you that they could not grant an inheritance to anyone who didn't believe in god and jebus, and that <em>conversion </em>would be necessary to ensure your eligibility, what would be your response? Let's say half a million dollars is at stake in this decision. Would you stand your ground and remain adamant about your atheism or would you acquiesce and go get <em>baptized</em>? Would playing a charade to ensure a fat bank account cause you mental anguish? Or would the peace of mind in remaining true to oneself outweigh the allure of potential financial gain? </p>
<p>And I realize there is the option of being able to contest a family will/inheritance. But that outcome is not a certainty.</p> Are we just holograms in a reality which is merely an illusion?tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-07-15:1982180:Topic:11556112012-07-15T15:07:53.086ZUnseenhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Unseen
<p>When you pound your head on the wall (something I'm sure we all do several times a day), did you know that your head never touches the wall? Not really. That sudden resistance your head feels is due to the repulsive forces operating at the atomic level, NOT due to your head actually touching the wall. The atoms in your head never actually smash into the atoms in the wall.</p>
<p>If you took all the empty space out of all the matter in the universe, scientists tell us we'd end up with an…</p>
<p>When you pound your head on the wall (something I'm sure we all do several times a day), did you know that your head never touches the wall? Not really. That sudden resistance your head feels is due to the repulsive forces operating at the atomic level, NOT due to your head actually touching the wall. The atoms in your head never actually smash into the atoms in the wall.</p>
<p>If you took all the empty space out of all the matter in the universe, scientists tell us we'd end up with an amazingly small object about the size (depending upon which scientist you ask) about the size of an orange, a grapefruit, or a basketball. This makes the vast size of the universe and the huge dimensions of the objects in it seem rather illusory.</p>
<p>Recently, scientists are seriously considering that the universe and everything in it, including you and me, is a gigantic hologram. We exist, according to this theory, inside a sphere in which all of the information regarding everything in it, exists based on information encoded on the outside of the sphere. This concept is based by the theory, currently gaining acceptance, that—contrary to what we used to think, namely that when something disappears into a black hole, it is destroyed and gone forever—actually its information is somehow encoded on the surface of the black sphere. All the information needed to reconstruct the objects which fall in.</p>
<p>Add this to other illusiions. That we have free will, for example, and are somehow an exception to the laws which drive all other phenomena. Deterministic laws on the gross level and statistical laws on the subatomic level.</p>
<p>Can you add more examples?</p>
<p>And what are your thougts?</p>